Comment Re:Firefox (Score 1) 117
Other people already suggested unchecking the option. My assumption was that the OP already tried it and it didn't work for them for some reason (FF can be weird sometimes)
Other people already suggested unchecking the option. My assumption was that the OP already tried it and it didn't work for them for some reason (FF can be weird sometimes)
Every time I open Firefox it mags me to set it as the default browser. If I wanted to do so I would. I don't need nagware on my machine.
Type in the address bar about:config (press Enter) (promise to be careful, if asked)
Type in the search bar browser.defaultbrowser.notificationbar and set its value to false
Type in the search bar browser.shell.checkDefaultBrowser and set its value to false
Close and restart Firefox.
-- source.
Fair enough on the free speech points. But this group owns the copyrights to Seuss, and they have business interests in maximizing sales. They are choosing to cease publication of certain books because they think IT WILL MAKE THEM MORE MONEY. Don't buy the high-minded rhetoric for a second. They want to stop publishing certain books in order to preserve future sales.
Are you suggesting that this company should be FORCED to publish? Because that's completely different than free speech. I'm not allowed to silence your voice. As a good American, I should be willing to defend your right to be a booger-eating retrograde, if you so choose to be. However, that's not the question here. Am I allowed to FORCE you to say something specific? Because that's the position this company is in. They are choosing to cease the production of certain products that THEY OWN. Who are we to tell them otherwise?
The copyright holder has every right not to publish.
They have absolutely no right to prevent a re-sale of previously purchased items.
The first sale doctrine is a thing.
Genesis basically comes down to, Human Suffering comes from trying to control your world too much. Adam and Eve enticed by getting knowledge, Large cities fall due to them trying to control their lives, while the outsider saves the fate, because they trust in the land more.
So basically "knowledge is bad, autonomy is bad, agency is bad, trust and obey the clerics"?
The text of the bill does not differentiate between a link, an excerpt or wholesale reproduction (see my comment here for a citation). Facebook does not have much choice, they would be liable to pay if a user posted a news link.
" I am concerned that that code risks breaching a fundamental principle of the web by requiring payment for linking between certain content online"
That concern is unfounded. Payment is not required for linking but for use of copyrighted material.
Incorrect.
From the actual text of the bill (emphasis mine):
52B Making content available
(1) For the purposes of this Part, a service makes content available if:
(a) the content is reproduced on the service, or is otherwise placed on the service; or
(b) a link to the content is provided on the service; or
(c) an extract of the content is provided on the service.
(2) Subsection (1) does not limit, for the purposes of this Part, the ways in which a service makes content available.
52C Interacting with content
(1) For the purposes of this Part, a user of a service interacts with content made available by the service if:
(a) the content is reproduced on the service, or is otherwise placed on the service, and the user interacts with the content; or
(b) a link to the content is provided on the service and the user interacts with the link; or
(c) an extract of the content is provided on the service and the user interacts with the extract.
(2) Subsection (1) does not limit, for the purposes of this Part, the ways in which a user of a service interacts with content made available by a service.
Source: News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code
Yep. I'm not sure the law requires payment, it just enables content owners able to ask for it.
It also mandates arbitration to set a remuneration amount:
52ZX Final offer arbitration
(1) The panel is to make a determination under this subsection about the terms for resolving the remuneration issue that:
(a) is in accordance with subsections (7), (8) and (9) (final offer arbitration); and
(b) sets out a lump sum amount (the remuneration amount ) for remunerating the registered news business for the making available of the registered news business’ covered news content by the designated digital platform service for 2 years
Source: News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code
Here's what BMI says:
A “public performance” of music is defined in the U.S. copyright law to include any music played outside a normal circle of friends and family.
According to that definition, it was a public performance.
Will OTPs be enough? The [hyped] premise of using quantum techniques to crack encryption [if I understand, which is admittedly dubious] is that a quantum computer can effectively test all possible permutations to decrypt ciphertext *at the same time*... In other words, what ever the time requirement for a conventional computer to test a single decryption key , a quantum computer can theoretically test *all possible decryption keys*, and find the correct one.
The problem is that there is no "correct key". Every possible OTP is equally "correct" and each one will result in a different, but equally valid decryption.
For example, let's assume that the "to test a single decryption key" part of your message is encrypted by XORing it with an OTP.
Pray tell how will my quantum computer decide between hex key 3916001c0a0511520252120f1a4705160002100f1e591f12490a0b4c184458 and hex key 3d4f571d091f544e0e54530b1b1e4c11480d1643061612150a0c014e02160d when decrypting it?
The only thing that is completely free of bias is pure math.
Stating that the area of a circle is Pi times the square of its radius is objectively unbiased.
That said, most people use a less formal (and less pedantic) meaning of "unbiased" in daily conversation (similarly to the culinary meanings of "vegetable" and "fruit" differing from their biological definitions).
For news reporting, a good definition of "unbiased" would be not jumping to conclusions before knowing the facts, not trying to play down (or outright hide) aspects that inconvenience the reporter's worldview or emphasize those that do, not attaching value judgements, etc. And while it may be impossible to eliminate all bias, one can get close.
If the word "unbiased" offends your sensibilities, you can mentally substitute "less biased" in its stead.
My question was about the system, not an individual player.
Because shit goes wrong and you need to verify, audit and validate financial transactions, do AML and banned persons checks, confirm there's no fraud and then balance totals against each other so that only the difference in balance get shifted around.
All of this can be automated. Computers are fast.
You could accelerate a lot of this but any changes both cost money and also reduce revenue for people that will thus fight against that change.
And that's why we can't have nice things.
When you buy a stock, the transaction doesn't process for a few days.
What is the reason in this day and age for the transactions not to be instantaneous?
Can anyone please explain to me why moving bits around the Internet still requires 2 days settlement when transaction times are measured in milliseconds on a slow day?
Emphasis mine:
But they could trade stocks. Millions of them. How about this: "I got this app because it was supposed to give me access to a million restaurants. But I can't access Joe's Pizzeria, which is the only one I care about. But it works fine for the other 999,999." Is that a genuine 1-star review? Would you give this app a 1-star rating?
Possibly, especially if that limitation was not mentioned up-front, the restaurant was accessible before, and the reasons it was delisted were suspect. My review would say "the service delists restaurants for suspect reasons and thus cannot be trusted to work for you when you need it."
And this is the important part: while Google may want you to rate only the software, the users are interested in the service and do not (and should not) make the separation between the front and back end.
It used to be easier in the old days. When business were local, word of mouth would quickly dissuade them from doing sketchy things and manipulation was harder because once caught trying to do it, a person's recommendations would no longer be trusted. Globalization + concentration of power never works well for the general population.
I think there's a world market for about five computers. -- attr. Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board, IBM), 1943
